National Geographic's Slavery article
- Thread starter T'ai Chi
- Start date
Originally posted by elliotfc
Do you know what a strawman argument is? Do you understand that changing my specific reference to "Ex Cathedera" into "all infallible all the time," and then disproving the later, has nothing at all to do with what I said? Do you understand that the entire cut-and-paste you made was disproof for an argument I never advanced?
In any case, the doctrine of infalliablity was not even named until 1870. So it hardly seems that Catholics before 1870 would have necessarily agreed with a doctrine that had not yet been promulgated.
I did learn one thing: the 1870 doctrine doesn't say the Pope is infallible now, it says he was always infallible - that is, when you select out the statements they want him to have been infallible on. So most of the infallible statements of Popes in history were made by Popes that didn't know they were infallible.
Ok. Riiiight.
Remember when we talked about "making things up?"
You are simoultaneously asserting that the Bible is a) special, and b) not special. This is a logical flaw known by the technical name of "talking out your ass."
It's not just the Pope you think is infallible...
More discernment? My, but God must be busy talking to you. Why doesn't he try talking to the people on the wrong path, instead? Wouldn't that be more productive?
Did I say that? Did I even intiminate that? Didn't I specifically state when the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra? Please tell me how you got from my specific mention of the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra to "every Pope in history has always spoken infallibly in all words written and oral."
Do you know what a strawman argument is? Do you understand that changing my specific reference to "Ex Cathedera" into "all infallible all the time," and then disproving the later, has nothing at all to do with what I said? Do you understand that the entire cut-and-paste you made was disproof for an argument I never advanced?
In any case, the doctrine of infalliablity was not even named until 1870. So it hardly seems that Catholics before 1870 would have necessarily agreed with a doctrine that had not yet been promulgated.
I did learn one thing: the 1870 doctrine doesn't say the Pope is infallible now, it says he was always infallible - that is, when you select out the statements they want him to have been infallible on. So most of the infallible statements of Popes in history were made by Popes that didn't know they were infallible.
Ok. Riiiight.
Remember when we talked about "making things up?"
Then what source do you offer? Other than discernment? If your only source is discernment, then how is what you are doing different than making things up? Is God whispering in your ear, but no one elses?
But an atheist would not then go on to assert that the Bible is somehow special!
You are simoultaneously asserting that the Bible is a) special, and b) not special. This is a logical flaw known by the technical name of "talking out your ass."
And what, exactly, is your mechanism for determining which ideas of God are more correct? Ah, yes... discernment. God whispers in your ear. Nobody else's, or they'd have the correct idea too. Just yours.
This is done all the time. It's called "teaching physics." Seriously, don't take my word for it. Get out your local college catalog, and see if the professors who teach Newtoniam mechanics work in the same department as the ones who teach superstring. In fact, I'll bet there is at least one college campus where the same professor teaches both classes. Call those professors up and ask them if they think there is a problem with this.
For a person that just defended the infallibilty of Popes - as long as you pick and choose the ones you like - you seem awfully rigid about the concept of unanimity.
Do you understand what you are saying here? Do you understand that you are saying that your personal beliefs and feelings are more reliable than empirical evidence?
It's not just the Pope you think is infallible...
Didn't you just say it might not even contain what you believe in?
Because you ignore the words on the page, and substitute your own. Do you understand how what you do does not qualify as "reading" the Bible?
No, but you feel free to re-write it whenever you like. Such as ignoring the specifics of Leviticus.
But only for an instant... then you'll be all better again.
Wasn't that my point? We agree that punishment serves no purpose other than educational. But wait - once we are in Heaven, everything is perfect - so what do we need education for? Once we've made the only choice that matters, why do any further choices matter?
I'm well aware of what you think of my path. That was not the question. The question was how do you know this? How do you know that my path leads to hell, but the path of those who reject Leviticus does not?
Based on what? How can you tell the wrong way from the right way? Because it doesn't lead to God? But you have already acknowledged that any path can lead to God.
More discernment? My, but God must be busy talking to you. Why doesn't he try talking to the people on the wrong path, instead? Wouldn't that be more productive?
Yahzi said:
OK, so you believe that a Pope speaks Ex Cathedra sometimes, and not other times. We are in agreement then. Sorry, I wasn't quite sure to be honest what you actually believed when it came to Popes.
Reprimand accepted. Sorry about that.
No, that's not quite it. As far as I know all of my beliefs are not original to me, so it isn't really me making things up. I am obviously not making much sense to you Yahzi, but other persons (non-skeptics I guess) find me more reasonable. I never said that God whispers in my ear.
It's special enough for you to selectively quote though. There is a cult of sitcoms in this country, I just ignore them. I don't watch sitcoms, I don't quote sitcoms, I ignore people who talk about sitcoms. Things that I don't think are special I completely ignore, but you are different from me.
The Bible is special. I don't think that any part of the Bible is not special. I think that all people are special, but I don't believe everything in the same way that all people say.
I'm sorry that you equate discernment with God whispering in my ear. If you think my ideas are only my own...well, whatever. I know that not to be the case, and you have an opinion.
God whispering in my ear would be revelation, and not discernment, but you may find those words synonymous.
Yes, they would teach them in separate courses. I guess you could start with projectile motion, and the next week teach superstrings. And then go back to momentum and friction. It would depend on the teacher I guess. I've only taken Intro to Physics twice, once in high school and once in college. Neither of those professors deigned to explain superstrings in either of those courses. But you're right, I guess they could have. And of course I'd expect in more advanced, or theoretical, physics courses, you'd be exposed to the ideas (in detail, not just name-dropped).
I think that flawed Popes can speak infallibly at times, but I think you can say the same about just about any person.
I was talking about me. To me, yes, personal feelings are often more reliable than empirical evidence. I've never tried to empirically measure or judge girls I've loved, or music I love.
I'm just offering my theological and philosophical perspectives.
If you want to construe that to mean I reject empirical evidence, or don't feel it important, that doesn't change the fact that I actually do respect empirical evidence, and do feel it is important. Our difference in empirical evidence relates to past events that cannot be duplicated today. If we're talking about automobiles and photosynthesis (and we aren't, but if...) my feelings wouldn't at all be involved.
Reliability. That word can't be separated from some concept of a standard, or standards. I suppose I'll never get you to even understand my standards, and you'll most likely respond in a sarcastic way to what I just said, but that's the kind of guy you are Yahzi.
No, I don't ignore any words on pages of the Bible. Why do you think that I do? Ignoring is a word that means something. If I read something, how could I have possibly ignored it? If I don't read something, I've ignored that something. If you equate reading with complete acceptance, that's not the way I operate when I read. I could drop the *discernment* word but then you'll invoke the phrase *God whipsering in my ear* or *making stuff up as you go along*. This is turning into a circular argument (ugh) leading nowhere.
You want to believe that I ignore parts of the Bible, so you do. I don't ignore the Bible, I read the Bible, I think about every word in the Bible. So I really don't know what your deal is. You want to believe that I ignore parts of the Bible, so you do. People believe what they want to believe.
Wait, you're the guy who doesn't believe anything, right?
I've read Leviticus in its entirety once, and don't feel the need to read it in its entirety again. Frankly it's one of the less interesting books of the Bible. And then in the N.T. we are given a letter that handles whether or not a gentile needs to follow the Mosaic law. You would have every Christian follow the specifics of Leviticus? Why? What does my belief in the salvific act of Jesus necessarily have to do with Levitical law? You'd have every Christian believe as you would have them believe, that's what it comes down to. Which makes you as dogmatic as the most rabid fundamentalist.
You'll be transformed. All better *again*? Again is the wrong word. You'll be better.
Only God is perfect, so everything in heaven can't be perfect since non-God entities would be included.
All chioces matter. I don't believe that the chioce in question is the only choice that matters. It may be the most important choice, but all choices matter. If all choices didn't matter, then there would be no reason for reconciliation.
I don't know where your path will lead you in the end. I know what direction you are currently going, but you seem to be an honest and inquistive person after objective truth and if those are true sentiments and not just an assumed disguise, I don't know, I think you'll be alright in the end.
When Jesus encountered persons in the gospels he did not tell them to follow the letter of the Levitical law as the way to achieve salvation. I don't know why I, as a Christian, has to believe that every O.T. law must be followed.
Sure. Like a maze. If you are in a certain section of a maze, even if you are going away from the *exit*, you may still eventually get to the exit. Every path is intensely individual, and I am not going to begrudge someone just because their path is different from mine.
As for telling if someone is headed the wrong way, obviously you don't believe that you are in need of reconciliation with God. So you have to be going the wrong way, but maybe eventually you'll end up where I hope to end up. I can't condemn you if the totality of your path is different from mine. At some point though your perspective will have to change. Or it won't. But that's in your future, and I'm not going to try to predict that.
Discernment and revelation mean the same thing to you.
And by the way, are you sure that God isn't talking to you? God talks to different people in different ways. If you're expecting a burning bush, or whatever skeptical proof you desire, remember, you should not put the Lord to the test. He'll talk to you as he will, not as you will have him do so.
-Elliot
I think you just came up with a great advertising slogan for these guys.Yahzi said:
Originally posted by elliotfc
The acknowledgement, I mean. People make logical mistakes around here all the time.
What is discernment, really? It is not merely the process of reason: the application of logic to the facts at hand. It is more than that. Yet you clearly agree it is less than a revelation. Given that revelation is a communication from god, how is discernment different? If discernment is not communication from god, and it's not just reason, then what is it?
Actually, the analogy isn't quite correct, since even one fallible Pope destroys the concept that Popes are infallible. But that's a different argument.
I realize I'm not that old, but in my expierence, personal feelings are often unreliable. As an engineer, a stock investor, a consumer of manufactured goods, I find that my personal feelings, while often useful as a kind of warning flag or attention marker, are not terribly reliable at determining the actual facts of the empirical world. I extrapolate this to metaphysics: because my personal feelings are so inadequate at determing simple, empirical facts (like why my car won't start), I find it unlikely that they would be any more reliable about metaphysics.
You do not. You accept that your personal feelings are inadequate to fix cars, judge court cases, or build bridges, but you assert that they are more reliable than empiricism and logic the further you get from the empirical world.
I grant you this: they are more important. Your personal feelings on whether you love a girl or not are more important than your personal feelings on whether a bridge will collapse or not. But you mistake importance with accuracy.
Consider: you might actually love someone you conflict with. We all have heard stories of opposites attracting, how love and hate are fine lines, etc. However, as long as you feel negatively towards them, you shouldn't marry them. So here we have a (hypothetical) case where your personal feelings are inaccurate but still more important.
The physical world, that is, the world outside of our personal emotions and our social relations, does not work that way. It doesn't matter how you feel about life after death - its either there or it isn't. When dealing with anything other than your personal feelings, accuracy is more important.
And even when dealing with your personal feelings - accuracy matters! You shouldn't marry the girl you keep fighting with, but you should examine your feelings and realize that you actually are attracted to her, so you can marry her!
Here you are acknowledging the superiority of empirical investigation, provided the event is replicable. But all we have to do is render the event unreplicable, and suddenly all restraints are off?
How is this not an obvious special exemption? Consider: I have a glass that magically fills itself with beer. I can present tons of emotional testimony that confirms this. However, I dropped the glass yesterday and broke it, so it can never be tested. Does this case slip under your "non-replicable" radar?
You are simply making up an excuse to release your thinking from the rigid rules you already know and accept.
I'm serious. We both know what your standards are. We're just arguing about what to call them.
I realize that a standard doctrine is that Paul released you from Mosaic law. But that's not quite what you said, is it?
All a Christian has to do to defend his beliefs, in toto, impregnably, beyond the reach of any possible argument, proof, or attack, is to declare them "irrational."
Once you concede that you are irrational, I will no longer contest your beliefs. I might, however, contest your right to sign legal documents, drive a car, or own a gun.
Don't you get it? Once you define god as beyond knowledge, you have defined him to be beyond knowledge. All knowledge. We can't know that god is good, or bad, or has a plan, or dead, or a vegatable, because we can't know god.
But if you assert that we can know god, then you have to explain how we can.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
I realize you have some other interpretation of those words, but to me they seem pretty obvious.
Someone acknowledging that they made a logical mistake is so uncommon that it is necessary note when it happens.
The acknowledgement, I mean. People make logical mistakes around here all the time.
I understand that, but: if a bunch of people make something up, isn't it still just making things up?
No, I don't. But I think it would be quite illuminating for you to tell us how they are different.
What is discernment, really? It is not merely the process of reason: the application of logic to the facts at hand. It is more than that. Yet you clearly agree it is less than a revelation. Given that revelation is a communication from god, how is discernment different? If discernment is not communication from god, and it's not just reason, then what is it?
That was my point. The fact that a few physicists believe in any particularl silly concept does not invalidate the general unanimity of science, just as one or two nutcase Popes does not invalidate the infallibilty of Popes.
Actually, the analogy isn't quite correct, since even one fallible Pope destroys the concept that Popes are infallible. But that's a different argument.
This is the entire root of the problem. This is the entire difference between your viewpoint and mine. This is the whole banana.
I realize I'm not that old, but in my expierence, personal feelings are often unreliable. As an engineer, a stock investor, a consumer of manufactured goods, I find that my personal feelings, while often useful as a kind of warning flag or attention marker, are not terribly reliable at determining the actual facts of the empirical world. I extrapolate this to metaphysics: because my personal feelings are so inadequate at determing simple, empirical facts (like why my car won't start), I find it unlikely that they would be any more reliable about metaphysics.
You do not. You accept that your personal feelings are inadequate to fix cars, judge court cases, or build bridges, but you assert that they are more reliable than empiricism and logic the further you get from the empirical world.
I grant you this: they are more important. Your personal feelings on whether you love a girl or not are more important than your personal feelings on whether a bridge will collapse or not. But you mistake importance with accuracy.
Consider: you might actually love someone you conflict with. We all have heard stories of opposites attracting, how love and hate are fine lines, etc. However, as long as you feel negatively towards them, you shouldn't marry them. So here we have a (hypothetical) case where your personal feelings are inaccurate but still more important.
The physical world, that is, the world outside of our personal emotions and our social relations, does not work that way. It doesn't matter how you feel about life after death - its either there or it isn't. When dealing with anything other than your personal feelings, accuracy is more important.
And even when dealing with your personal feelings - accuracy matters! You shouldn't marry the girl you keep fighting with, but you should examine your feelings and realize that you actually are attracted to her, so you can marry her!
!!!
Here you are acknowledging the superiority of empirical investigation, provided the event is replicable. But all we have to do is render the event unreplicable, and suddenly all restraints are off?
How is this not an obvious special exemption? Consider: I have a glass that magically fills itself with beer. I can present tons of emotional testimony that confirms this. However, I dropped the glass yesterday and broke it, so it can never be tested. Does this case slip under your "non-replicable" radar?
You are simply making up an excuse to release your thinking from the rigid rules you already know and accept.
I do understand your standards. Quite clearly. You are the one who is confused. You are the one who engages in activities that are indistiguishable from "making it up," acknowledge at every step that what you are doing is different than what you would do in any other field of investigation, and yet refuse to acknowledge that what you are doing is merely "making it up."
I'm serious. We both know what your standards are. We're just arguing about what to call them.
When Leviticus tells you not to wear mixed fabrics, and you respond with, "I don't go for the specifics," that counts as having a) read the words, b) understood them, and c) decided to ignore them.
I realize that a standard doctrine is that Paul released you from Mosaic law. But that's not quite what you said, is it?
If you are going to assert that the Bible is the source of your religoin, then you must deal with the Bible. When it says things that are not part of your religion, you must explain how you separate the parts of the Bible that are authentic sources from the parts that aren't. Citing Paul as release from Mosaic law is an example of how to do this. Citing discernment is not. Do you see the difference?
Not at all. You are entitled to believe whatever nonsense you want. My only complaint is over the title "reasonable and prudent." If you are not reasonable and prudent, you do not get to call yourself reasonable and prudent. You can believe in space aliens for all I care, as long as you accept the title of "irrational."
All a Christian has to do to defend his beliefs, in toto, impregnably, beyond the reach of any possible argument, proof, or attack, is to declare them "irrational."
Once you concede that you are irrational, I will no longer contest your beliefs. I might, however, contest your right to sign legal documents, drive a car, or own a gun.
But that certainly doesn't stop you from condeming it.
Don't you get it? Once you define god as beyond knowledge, you have defined him to be beyond knowledge. All knowledge. We can't know that god is good, or bad, or has a plan, or dead, or a vegatable, because we can't know god.
But if you assert that we can know god, then you have to explain how we can.
It might be humorous to speculate on why I might be only pretending to honesty, inquistiveness, and objective truth. Of all the possible deceits to engage in, this one seems perplexing.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
I realize you have some other interpretation of those words, but to me they seem pretty obvious.
Quite certain. God knows my phone number. I answer it every time, but it's always just telemarketers. Never god.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
This is good.. It goes in my ' neat stuff to keep ' folder..
Have you figured out most of this stuff for yourself, or do you have a reference or two we could draw upon?
George Smith's "Atheism: the case against God" covers everything. The only thing I figured out for myself was the baseball bat test.Diogenes said:
I do recall the phrase "retreat into silence," but I forget who said it. It is the only logical option for the "god's ways are mysterious crowd," yet oddly they never seem to take it.